Congressional Advocates Announce Creation of Full Employment Caucus

reply to post by seasoul

It's another disaster in the making. The real problem being that everything the government touches, turns into pure garbage.

Thought I was the only one who noticed that.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

18 trillion dollars is a WHOLE lot more than "excuses". It forms the hopes, dreams and life savings or retirement of 10's of millions of American citizens either collecting or planning to someday collect on the retirement and pension plans invested as no small part of that 18 trillion we have on the books as debt.

So what. There's no reason not to pay all of the debt as it comes due. The people who invested in bonds will get paid their full cash value on maturity. This really has nothing to do with full employment policies, though.

What we are doing now is like running all your credit cards to max limits, burn them to collection agencies and then sue and cry for the RIGHT to be issued additional credit so you can pay the bills you burned your last credit cards trying to maintain. It's not a path with a survivable outcome. To use a popular buzzword these days? It's not...sustainable.

This is basically wrong. The US government is not a person. It can live forever and issues its own currency. There is zero chance that it will ever default on its debt. That is simply not a possibility, so there is no similarity to a person's credit card debt.

Very simple cause/effect processes are questioned like it's a new theory or something ...like debt spending leading to total failure and collapse is somehow illogical rather than self evident, for instance.

It's not self-evident at all that deficit spending by government leads to total collapse It's actually more likely to be the other way around. The US racked up a massive debt to win WWII, proportionally higher than today's debt. After the war, there were about 3 decades of broadly shared prosperity.

Full employment only works with two kinds of economies. One of which is actually successful for its own people, the other isn't very competitive

The first is a GDP backed monetary system economy. That is to say the currency is based on work done. Depending on the output of the society, the value of its currency changes. It's a positive feedback loop, the more investment in the economy, the more that happens/gets produced, the stronger the currency, the better the international trade position, the better the standard of living, etc. As far as I know, it has only been tried once in modern history and was very very successful for the society that did it, you just have to divorce the economics from the political climate of that time and place. If you do, there's some truly groundbreaking economic ideas that modern societies are stupid to ignore. Full employment was achieved. If you want to know more, it may be touchy on these forums because of the stigma attached to the time, but like I already said, if you can ignore that part, the economics were brilliant.

The second is a Communist economic system. Every attempt at pure communism has led to a strikingly uncompetitive society. China until the early 90s when it started turning a blind eye to capitalism. North Korea, Soviet Union nations, etc. etc.

A debt backed monetary heavy capitalist system like the US's today can't achieve full employment without becoming an authoritarian, socialist, or communist state. To somehow achieve full employment without morphing into the aforementioned would actually be very unhealthy for that economy.




Think of it this way. Most politicians are trained as lawyers. Besides the law they practice and maybe some of the attached industries, what are they experts at?

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

So what. There's no reason not to pay all of the debt as it comes due.

Here is the 'so what'.

The reason for taxation (that kills jobs) is to be able to pay government debt so it can function properly.

That is not what taxation has become in the current state of the union.

Taxation today is to pay for the peoples debt, so they can go out. and buy stuff.

That is the leading cause of government debt.

So much has been added there is no effing way that it can ever be paid for. So they keep taxing, They keep raising taxes. They keep creating new asinine taxation.

That all takes money out of all of our pockets.

That destroys jobs, and American wealth.

reply to post by xuenchen

"...A "Liberal Paradise" would be a place where:

everybody has guaranteed employment,free comprehensive healthcare, free education, free food, free housing, free clothing, free utilities, and only Law Enforcement has guns. Well, believe it or not, such a place does indeed exist .. ....It's called prison."

Sheriff Joe Arpaio
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
Phoenix, Arizona

reply to post by neo96


Yep, you got it. So many people don't understand the current monetary system. Every dollar you own is debt owed by someone else, but your dollar also has an interest rate attached. It's a negative feedback loop. You have to keep printing money to pay the interest on the money just printed. It works well early on. After a while, inflation catches up and taxation catches up and the value of the currency becomes a smaller and smaller fraction of work in the future. That's what debt is, having tomorrow's money today, but because of the time value of money, tomorrows dollar is always worth less than today's dollar, and so an interest rate is attached. It's ludicrous.

reply to post by neo96

They keep raising taxes. They keep creating new asinine taxation.

BS. Tax rates are lower now than they were in the 1950's. The current high unemployment rate has nothing to do with too high taxes.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

So what. There's no reason not to pay all of the debt as it comes due.

That sounds good as a slogan. Now, beyond the words...where and how do we repay 18 trillion or so dollars? Real people hold the other end of almost every last dollar of that. Real people who aren't likely to agree to just wish it all away like it doesn't count...and the solution I've literally heard a University Professor state as a serious course of action to pursue.

This really has nothing to do with full employment policies, though.

Do you honestly believe that? The state of the economy and health of our economic fundamentals have "nothing to do with full employment policies"?? The state or condition of the economy has *EVERYTHING* to do with whether business or larger corporations will expand or downsize...hire new people or lay off people and/or close plants. Everything is interlinked in economics and one BIG BIG area crashing will impact every other area in predictably bad ways. This is literally (and I'm not kidding..it actually IS..) Economics 101 level concepts?

This is basically wrong. The US government is not a person.

We aren't a dictatorship...yet. The United States Government in not a person. It's roughly 330 million people at last census estimates from the 2010 count. We're a system made from, by and of the people. The fact we've willfully forgotten that to allow the whole house to burn down around us ..isn't the system's fault. (grabs mirror) here...the guilty party can be seen by gazing in that special mirror.

It's not self-evident at all that deficit spending by government leads to total collapse It's actually more likely to be the other way around.

We're on different planets. All the gold EVER MINED in the full history of mankind comes to under 8 trilllion...IF we owned all of it and IF we could amass it all in one place to count ..which we don't and we can't. ALL the gold on Earth ..wouldn't even pay 50% of the current US National debt ...and we're running it higher by 1-2 trillion a year right now (depending on which set of fuzzy numbers...sans any official budget..to know for certain)

Yep.

Gold isn't the way to go. Not enough of it, and it's used in too many high end electronics and other products to be a good currency/money (there is a difference between currency and money for those who don't know)

I'm telling you guys. GDP backed currency.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Taxes are part of the mix that creates unemployment. While you are right about the 1950s having a much higher tax rate. You have to take into account the value of goods and services in terms of dollars vs today. You also have to take into account the amount of debt the US has vs what it had and a myriad of other variables.

Even though the tax rate was higher, the lower nominal rate hurts more today than the higher rate did in those years.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I don't care what their motivation is. Now we are talking about jobs. A growing, working tax base would solve so many of our problems and stop this stalemate. And the most important obligation we have is to the veterans. It is going to take a LOT of money to fulfill our promises, instead of cutting their benefits like we did the Viet Nam vets. And have already started cutting the current war vets benefits.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

where and how do we repay 18 trillion or so dollars? Real people hold the other end of almost every last dollar of that. Real people who aren't likely to agree to just wish it all away like it doesn't count...and the solution I've literally heard a University Professor state as a serious course of action to pursue.

Pretty simple, like any other bill, the government can borrow to pay it, tax to pay it, or print money to pay it. This isn't rocket science. The government does this stuff like every single year.

The state or condition of the economy has *EVERYTHING* to do with whether business or larger corporations will expand or downsize...hire new people or lay off people and/or close plants. Everything is interlinked in economics and one BIG BIG area crashing will impact every other area in predictably bad ways. This is literally (and I'm not kidding..it actually IS..) Economics 101 level concepts?

The national debt is not the be-all and end all of business expectations. There is no reason to believe that businesses are holding back on hiring people because the national debt is too high. I doubt that you've taken Econ 101 anyway.

All the gold EVER MINED in the full history of mankind comes to under 8 trilllion...IF we owned all of it and IF we could amass it all in one place to count ..which we don't and we can't. ALL the gold on Earth ..wouldn't even pay 50% of the current US National debt ...and we're running it higher by 1-2 trillion a year right now (depending on which set of fuzzy numbers...sans any official budget..to know for certain)

We don't need any gold to pay the national debt, just dollars, so I don't see why you even brought that up. It seems like you are very confused.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

We don't need any gold to pay the national debt, just dollars, so I don't see why you even brought that up. It seems like you are very confused.

You can't print dollars to pay for the national debt like that. Please learn about fractional banking and how most of our debt is in the form of interest attached to the dollars borrowed indirectly from FED by our treasury. How do you think the dollars are generated? By issuing debt.

Basically what your suggesting is paying for our debt with the thing that generates the debt in the first place. You'd incur massive massive debt by trying to pay that debt in one fell swoop... see?

It's like paying off a credit card with another credit card...the debt still exists.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

Congress can create programs like the WPA or CCC. Such programs most certainly do create jobs. It's also possible for congress to create jobs by spending money on infrastructure or defense. I'm not sure why some people think it's impossible for government to create jobs.

I'm still wondering why this *Caucus* didn't do anything when the chance was perfect?

They had the golden ratio opportunity especially in 2009 and 2010.

Why did they do zero?


reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

So what. There's no reason not to pay all of the debt as it comes due. The people who invested in bonds will get paid their full cash value on maturity. This really has nothing to do with full employment policies, though.

The problem with perpetual debt is that they perpetually borrow more to pay due debts.
Then they borrow above that to pay for the binge deficit spending.
How do you get out of that endless loop?
Perhaps higher employment combined with spending cuts would balance the books?
But then what happens when they have a surplus?

They could be planning to make the masses work for their welfare checks....Like the UK is doing now with The Work Program.

xuenchen
this *Caucus* didn't do anything when the chance was perfect?

They had the golden ratio opportunity especially in 2009 and 2010.

Why did they do zero?

Hmmmm....If I recall they were too busy with the one and only thing they needed
to pass into legislation that would be the straw that broke the back of the people,
which is known as....yep....you guessed it! Obamacare!

They dont really care about creating private sector jobs, they are busy now
looking for more creative means of Wealth Redistribution.

Progressive, Socialist, Marxist.

There's not much need for me to say anything, as the problems with the Full Employment Caucus have been well covered. But there is something that caught my eye and left me worried.

Pretty simple, like any other bill, the government can borrow to pay it, tax to pay it, or print money to pay it. This isn't rocket science. The government does this stuff like every single year.

Well, let's look at those options. France has learned, under their new President, that if you raise taxes enough, your big earners leave the country. I have no doubt that wealthy Americans could keep their money, in large part, out of the hands of the government. The tax burden falls largely, then, on the middle class. It would not take long for the middle class to say, "If we take a cut in pay, then the government will pay us enough benefits without working.

And there's the Laffer curve. It's shape can be debated, but there's no debate it exists. The idea is that if the government puts the tax rate at 0% it will have no revenues. If they put the tax rate at 100%, they will also have no revenues, because who works a lifetime to have all their earnings confiscated? So there is a tax rate which will generate the most revenue, but it's certainly not 90%.

The suggestion was made that we could print the money to pay for things including, I suppose, our debts and the interest on our debts. That idea seems to open the door to a glorious future for the United States. Under the "Print the money" concept, if we want anything we can have it by printing the money for it. Is Syria and the Middle-East causing troubles? Well, under the "Print the money" concept, we only have to print enough to buy the entire Middle-East. Then, since it's all ours, we can declare peace under any terms we want.

We could supply every citizen of the United States a new car every year. We'd just print the money to pay for it. And we can give everyone crossing the border $50,000, so they can have a good start in the US. We could buy Asia's entire stock of tennis shoes (or whatever they're called now) and distribute them to urban areas, reducing the violence over shoes.

And think of the science! We could pay for manned missions to every planet in the Solar System. We could give cancer and AIDS researchers all the money they need.

We can do all of it at the same time, just keep those presses running.

I hope you can see from this extreme example, that just printing more money won't get the results hoped for. When you can see why printing bazilions of dollars won't work, we can go to the next point. (Which may be government employment for everyone.)

reply to post by xuenchen

I'm still wondering why this *Caucus* didn't do anything when the chance was perfect?

You are welcome to wonder whatever you want. That appropriate action was not taken before is not a reason not to act now.

reply to post by charles1952

There's not much need for me to say anything, as the problems with the Full Employment Caucus have been well covered.

No, actually, there has only been one single objection raised by opponents- a bogus claim that 'we can't afford it'. Which you go on to simply repeat.

France has learned, under their new President, that if you raise taxes enough, your big earners leave the country. I have no doubt that wealthy Americans could keep their money, in large part, out of the hands of the government. The tax burden falls largely, then, on the middle class. It would not take long for the middle class to say, "If we take a cut in pay, then the government will pay us enough benefits without working.

This is mainly a fantasy promoted by right wing hacks. There has not been a mass emigration of millionaires from france. Middle class families are not going to go on welfare or foodstamps because of a tax increase. www.nytimes.com...

And there's the Laffer curve. It's shape can be debated, but there's no debate it exists.

Tax rates right now are very low, historically speaking. We know quite well that we are not on the side of the laffer curve where lowering rates increases revenue.

The suggestion was made that we could print the money to pay for things including, I suppose, our debts and the interest on our debts. That idea seems to open the door to a glorious future for the United States. Under the "Print the money" concept, if we want anything we can have it by printing the money for it....

Obviously, printing money can cause inflation. There are limits to what can be done with it. I am not proposing that we just print infinite money. You are arguing against a straw man.

It seems that the right wingers on this sight suffer from extreme confusion, going so far as to say that paying the national debt requires some vast trove of gold bars.

Imagine how much good we could do this country if we got millions of people off of welfare, food stamps, and unemployment benefits and put them to work repairing crumbling infrastructure, repairing environmental damage, educating children, etc. specific projects would best be left to local authorities to prioritize. When you consider how much money would be saved on other programs, the cost would be much less than it mightt seem on the face of it.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

Tax rates right now are very low, historically speaking. We know quite well that we are not on the side of the laffer curve where lowering rates increases revenue.

Which specific taxes are you talking about? I've got stats in piles here for getting into this.. (rubs paws together)

Which taxes do you figure are low and in what historic context are you reaching to come up with that theory? This is an area I don't even need to spend the hours (weeks as it happened) researching. I've already done it and know the outcomes..but I'm very curious as to the basis and examples behind your conclusions?